Pat Paternalism

Ever since Demosthenes choked up a pebble, politicians have been trying to improve their persuasion techniques.

The new “nudge” initiative is, in that context, not new.

Our glorious leaders in Washington are in the process of cooking up a “Behavioral Insights Team,” which will research behavioral economics, psychology and allied fields for new ways to nudge we, the people, to do what they, the rulers, want.

Ominous?

It’s a revival of the fashionable “libertarian paternalism” of a few years back. The idea is to find ways to encourage “good behavior” by providing the right contexts, juxtapositions, and options for citizens as they interface with their beloved overlords.

Excuse me: beloved public servants.

Businesses have used similar techniques. What do you think the art of product placement near cash registers is but a “nudging” of consumers to “impulse buy”?

Folks in government smilingly shrug off any ominous odor of intimidation: placing organ donor options on drivers’ licenses is a fine example of the technique. They want to extend such practices to encourage us to save, drive safely, pay taxes., etc., etc.

But how well behaved are our paternalistic manipulators? After all, as Greg Gutfeld pointed out on Red Eye or The Five (they blend in my mind), the reason they must encourage people to save is that the incentives to save have been undermined by other government policies. And people would pay taxes more readily if taxes were easier to understand …

The paternalism is obvious. The context anything but “libertarian.” But, all in all, much worse things have come out of Washington in recent years.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.